El último superviviente

Given that movies in the 50s and 60s were never meant to show the true life "grittiness" of war that we see in movies made today such as Saving Private Ryan, I was more turned off by the lack of truth to the story. As many others have said here, it's a great story worthy of a big budget production. I lived on Guam while in the Navy, and actually had the opportunity to go to what is called "Tweed's cave". Which by the way is located in the Northwest corner of the island on the Navy's Communnication station property. It's well worth the hike because you really get a sense of the life Tweed led in those 18month's. Watch the movie for it's own sake and not for the truthfulness of the story line.

If you read the book, four guys decide not to surrender. The Japanese knew about them and were absolutely ruthless. Killing the native Chamorros ruthlessly and brutally. Many of the natives gave their lives and did not give away where they were hidden.

Three of the soldiers thought they'd sleep and some kind of native Hut and native turn them in because his whole family was threatened. Man there's no easy answers here.

George Tweed held out to the end and it was a destroyer that picked him up not a submarine.

He also use Semaphore Flags, which are very hard to use. More difficult than Morse code. To communicate to the Destroyer that picked him up. Read the book and watch the movie.

This is an excellent war movie based on a true story. The action is great, and the characters very identifiable. There is one really mean character, but his character does ring true for the times, and he reveals a prejudice that was present. In fact, as a historical adventure based on true events, certain liberties are taken to show higher truths. That is what this movie does. Characters will often be composites to show the events in a condensed version. Otherwise, the movie would be forty hours long. This movie centralizes on Tweed and four other Americans trying to escape occupied Japanese territory. They are aided by natives, and that is what the movie is about. Modern audiences won't like the fact that Tweed is a likable character. One of the advantages of older movies is that they didn't present all lead characters as ridiculous stereotypes and homicidal maniacs. Also, some puritans insist that every action be historically beyond doubt. To read some of the reviews here, you would think that they couldn't show Tweed eating rice without having a receipt for the rice in the Smithsonian Institute. Just enjoy a well done movie with great actors. Remember, who did the studio get to play the son of God in a later movie?

Lots of action and suspense. Good scenery and story line. I enjoy these actors. I wish it was available on TV again.

No Man is an Island is best seen not as a war film but as one man's spiritual odyssey. I fully agree with rsoonsa's comments that the film suffers from shoddy production values and a serious lack of logic. But get through the first half of the film and you have a tremendously moving experience.

Why should one man's life be spared when all of his comrades are killed? This is the question that the main character struggles with, and it's mainly through the local priest that he learns to accept the sacrifice of the people of Guam.

Jeffrey Hunter understands that his role doesn't call for the tough, gritty approach that he essayed so brilliantly in Hell to Eternity. Rather, he calls upon his unique qualities of masculinity and sensitivity to suggest his character's growing spiritual awareness. Some of Hunter's closeups are of heartrending beauty, bringing a spiritual quality that no actor today could touch.

There's a reason why No Man is an Island has been released on DVD - albeit in a misguided widescreen transfer that crops crucial information from the top and bottom of the frame. It speaks to a lot of people and transcends its various flaws through the sheer inspiration of its message.